High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.11904 of 2025and Crl.M.P.Nos.7936 and 7937 of 20251. Baskaran @ Agravaram K Baskar 2. Ganesan... PetitionersVs1. The State Rep By The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet District, Crime No.34 of 2023.2. Janagiraman... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Crl.P.C/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the C.C.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet and quash the same.For Petitioners : Mr.N.Arun KumarFor R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.side) ORDERThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet.Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 20252. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a member in Tamil Nadu State Congress General body. It is alleged that on 19.01.2023 at around 05.15 p.m., there was a protest demonstration meeting at Ranipet, when the State President was about to conclude the demonstration, the defacto complainant asked the State President whether the demonstration proceeded as per party rules. At that time, the accused abused the defacto complainant and attacked him. Hence, the complaint.4. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.34 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent Police filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet.Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 20255. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is not allegation to attract any of the offences as against the petitioners herein.6. A perusal of records revealed that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC. That apart, the grounds raised by the petitioners can be considered only during the trial before the Trial Court.7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-" 12.So far as the second ground is concerned, we are of the view that the High Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. had no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and, therefore, there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No.2. In our view, this could be done only in the trial while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 2025deciding the appeal arising out of the final order passed by the Trial Court but not in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law. 8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:“19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 2025minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.20.In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.”9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the order dated 02.12.2019 in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, as follows: "9. It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 2025allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged............... 13. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage...................."The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the points raised by the petitioner are mixed question of facts and it cannot be considered in quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.10. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceeding in C.C.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet. The personal appearance of the petitioners is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. However, the petitioners shall be present before the Court at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and at the time of passing judgment. The Trial Court is Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 2025directed to complete the trial in CC No.55 of 2023, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.11. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.21.04.2025Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking ordermnPage 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,mnTo 1. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet.2. The Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet District.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.11904 of 202521.04.2025Page 8 of 8